3Fs wrote:Good point, and this, I predict, is why the Republicans will not regain the White House next year. If the way they're operating now is any indication, their strategy is to tap into the anger of a relatively small group while shunning most other groups - not a good way to win elections. Let's see, prominent Republicans, even during this primary, have insulted unions, the unemployed, minorities, gays, and the groups you just mentioned. What's more, think not only of those numbers, but of the numbers when you consider the aforementioned people have spouses, sons, daughters, coworkers, et al, who fit into such categories, and are open to voting other than along party lines.

BTW, "average 'taxpaying' American citizens" had their taxes lowered by Obama. If that's what socialism is, keep it coming!

Inflation has wiped out any and all of Obama's tax cuts, which I assume you mean by the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Ask anyone who has had to fill their fuel tank, shopped for food or anything else the average American taxpayer does on a normal bases and they will tell you how beneficial the Obama administration has been for their standard of living.

I hear what you are saying there is nothing worse in the Liberal's mind than the idea of actually putting people back to work by creating more private sector jobs. That scenario runs completely opposite of the progressive/socialist agenda. Do you not see a problem when over 50% of the population of this country are receiving some form of government handout? My question is where does it stop or do you even want to see this stopped?

Pay attention, jgd777...he said "average taxpaying American citizens", not the top 1% "CEO class" that Bush favored. Bush's cuts did literally nothing for people who don't earn a million or more per year. Obama has pushed through an additional $2B in cuts, for the rest of us; something Republicans are happy to lie about. The U.S. inflation rate was 3% in 2011. Under Reagan it was 3.8%. Virtually all the price increases you mention can be traced back to energy costs. Of course, that's because the Democrats are killing the oil companies. Except...those companies have created 75000 new jobs, under Obama. New domestic drilling is up 60% in 2011, alone, and oil imports have shrunk by 11%. Several economists have predicted higher fuel prices by summer, because more people will be driving more miles, as a result of our improving economy. Again, these are facts that Republicans want to ignore, or just lie about.You heard someone say that putting people back to work is a bad thing? You must have been listening to a Romney speech, because nobody said that on this forum. I gave you a list of Americans who are no longer able to earn income and I suggested that it was the policy of your political persuasion to abandon those citizens to fend for themselves. Your inability to hear anything but the steady drone of Right-Wing propaganda prevents you from even beginning to understand what that means.I said retired worker and disabled vets have earned and deserve our support. You heard, "Liberals want everyone on the dole!" You repeat the discredited meme that half of America is getting a handout, supposedly so they'll vote for Democrats. And you believe it, because you believe that the people I mentioned want to live in a ghetto and scrabble for food. You've apparently been convinced that anyone who doesn't vote Republican is a leech with his hand out and unworthy of citizenship. That's fair. Because I'm convinced that anyone who does vote Republican is a selfish, thinking bigot who is so terrified of the world he lives in that he'll sacrifice anything and anyone to buy the protection of his corporate masters.

Someone posted that Obama was an "uppity ****. I declared that remark to be stupid and bigoted. The DP banned me for 30 days, for "making racist remarks", proving that reading comprehension isn't required for DP moderators.

No surprise here. Cult-conservatives stuck their hooks in these people decades ago, even as far back as when they belonged to the Democrat party. Evolution is difficult for these people, so Mitt never really never stood a chance down there or any other place in the south.

You would think they would look at Newt's "family values" and steer away from him but those hooks run deep in the south. I'm just happy Romney is able to stay close...show's that things are improving down there anyway.

So, with Newtie "winning" the South Carolina contest, may we expect to soon see Rick Santorum (please) withdraw from the contest?

How interesting will it be in the next, interminable it seems at this point, debates to see old Newtie, fully unfettered after his fun in South Carolina, going after "Mr. Slinky", AKA Mitt Romney and the wondrously unflappable Ron Paul. All I can say is give em' the facts Ron Paul (it's becoming nearly impossible for the moderators to ignore Dr. Paul now) and they'll only think it's hell!

Opinions are by their nature, mutable, but facts are, by their nature, immutable.

Those who give any weight or substance to an electronic thumbs down, on any WWW forum, given without comment, waste their own time.

Erudite41 wrote:So, with Newtie "winning" the South Carolina contest, may we expect to soon see Rick Santorum (please) withdraw from the contest?

How interesting will it be in the next, interminable it seems at this point, debates to see old Newtie, fully unfettered after his fun in South Carolina, going after "Mr. Slinky", AKA Mitt Romney and the wondrously unflappable Ron Paul. All I can say is give em' the facts Ron Paul (it's becoming nearly impossible for the moderators to ignore Dr. Paul now) and they'll only think it's hell!

Newt might win South Carolina. I don't think he has a snowball chance in hell to win Florida.

Erudite41 wrote:So, with Newtie "winning" the South Carolina contest, may we expect to soon see Rick Santorum (please) withdraw from the contest?

How interesting will it be in the next, interminable it seems at this point, debates to see old Newtie, fully unfettered after his fun in South Carolina, going after "Mr. Slinky", AKA Mitt Romney and the wondrously unflappable Ron Paul. All I can say is give em' the facts Ron Paul (it's becoming nearly impossible for the moderators to ignore Dr. Paul now) and they'll only think it's hell!

Newt might win South Carolina. I don't think he has a snowball chance in hell to win Florida.

Why?

“... 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?" -Lawrence Lessig

Gingrich is a man of low moral standing. He is a serial adulterer and he was guilty of ethics violations while in Congress, fined and forced to resign as Speaker of the House. It is clear by his actions that the higher concepts of duty, honor and fidelity hold no meaning for this man.

It is a certain wonder why anyone would vote for him to hold a position of leadership and power.

But then again, BHO was elected. Surely this country is going to hell.

Tahosa65 wrote:Romney is a construct. An assembly of parts selected by his "handlers" to appeal to the disinterested, uninformed, poorly educated and casual Republican. His positions are what his people tell him are popular today. His "flubs" are more a lapse of memory (he didn't recall exactly what the experts had told him to say) than any real misstatement. Like all wind up toys, he will run out of steam unless someone winds him up again. I doubt that he has ever had an original thought. Newt is Newt. Probably the smartest candidate in the race, his personal flaws and checkered past turn off a lot of conservatives. A Nation that forgave Bill Clinton, John Kennedy and many others for exactly the same moral shortcomings has a problem with Newt. More's the pity. This could be the year of the Independent, perhaps a dark horse from the Libertarian Party. Gary Johnson perhaps? If nothing else, Obama has to be licking his lips at the running joke that the Republican Party has become.

The nation knew nothing of Kennedy's shortcomings as a senator or as president. His private life was deemed off limits. The same was true with FDR. Ike had his mistress during years in Europe. Whether the relationship continued is debatable.

I am not sure that those are shortcoming of any person WRT to holding a job. That is about personal character, not professional/political character. Many ppl treat those differently.

For example, you will not find me going after Newt, reagan, W, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, or FDR for running around. OTH, I DO go after ppl like Newt, Cheney, Rove, reagan, W, Clinton, Nixon, Poppa Bush, Romney, Paul, etc for being liars. If they are liars esp. in a political situation, then it means that they can not be trusted. And yes, Paul and Newt are liars. I am unimpressed by both right now. I thought that newt would learn his lesson, but it was me that had to learn. The same is true of Paul.

“... 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?" -Lawrence Lessig

I'm currently viewing Ron Paul as a tempering or moderating force between Romney and Gingrich. His intelligence, superior to that of either Newt or Willard in my opinion helps to lower the peaks and raises the floor of the valleys in these debates. The most striking thing I note is that no one save Ron Paul seems willing, (capable?) of espousing a coherent strategic view of Americas actual future through a clear policy statement or two.

My personal fondness for Ron Paul cooled soon after I read several of his earlier views on race published in some of his earlier papers. However, I do still support some of his policy views as they seem to me to be rational ones. As an American of minority background I am still uncertain who I will vote for in the primary. I do know who I will most likely vote for in the general, depending on who prevails in our Republican primaries.

Opinions are by their nature, mutable, but facts are, by their nature, immutable.

Those who give any weight or substance to an electronic thumbs down, on any WWW forum, given without comment, waste their own time.

Erudite41 wrote:I'm currently viewing Ron Paul as a tempering or moderating force between Romney and Gingrich. His intelligence, superior to that of either Newt or Willard in my opinion helps to lower the peaks and raises the floor of the valleys in these debates. The most striking thing I note is that no one save Ron Paul seems willing, (capable?) of espousing a coherent strategic view of Americas actual future through a clear policy statement or two.

My personal fondness for Ron Paul cooled soon after I read several of his earlier views on race published in some of his earlier papers. However, I do still support some of his policy views as they seem to me to be rational ones. As an American of minority background I am still uncertain who I will vote for in the primary. I do know who I will most likely vote for in the general, depending on who prevails in our Republican primaries.

You know what bothers me the most about that? He is now lying about it and disavowing that he wrote that or even knew about it. It is one thing to say that when I was younger I believed that way, but have changed. It is a whole other issue to say that you have no knowledge of your earlier position and not take responsibility for something from 20 or even 40 years ago.

“... 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?" -Lawrence Lessig

How can anyone get so much so wrong. President Obama has never created a "job" for us lower tier wage earners in his life. The only jobs he has created are "Czar" positions for every program he can envision. Positions that are, by the way, outside of and independent of Congressional oversight. Requirements that would be in place should he go the traditional route of filling established positions. The tax cuts mentioned were proposed by President Bush and passed by a Democratic Congress That they have been continued by the present administration does not mean that Obama had anything to do with their creation. They do not favor the "top 1%" unless you think that earning 50k a year puts you in the top 1%. By the way, Obama is using his Czar's to create rules, rules outside of the law, that are effectively circumventing the law, Congress and the Courts. This is rule by fiat rather than by consensus. Yes Obama inherited a deficit that was greater than any previous incoming administration has had to deal with. So what did he do? He increased it by a factor of 7. It is now seven times larger than it was when he came to power. And of course, to liberals, it's still Bush's fault, three years and two bank bail out's later.

Tahosa65 wrote:How can anyone get so much so wrong...The tax cuts mentioned were proposed by President Bush and passed by a Democratic Congress

The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001. The Republican-led House passed it May 16th, and the Republican-led Senate passed it May 23rd.

The Senate did flip to Democratic control the day before President Bush signed it, on June 6th.

So no, it did not get passed by a Democratic Congress. It got passed by a Republican Congress.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”― Isaac Asimov